From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MhCXm-0001BJ-Of
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:15:50 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MhCXi-00019A-98
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:15:50 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52889 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MhCXi-000197-3i
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:15:46 -0400
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:44384)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1MhCXh-0002Ie-Oz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:15:45 -0400
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:15:17 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Extending virtio_console to support multiple
	ports
Message-ID: <20090829011517.GG8036@shareable.org>
References: <1251181044-3696-1-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com>
	<20090826112718.GA11117@amit-x200.redhat.com>
	<20090826154552.GA31910@amit-x200.redhat.com>
	<1251346023.20467.21.camel@pasglop>
	<20090827100809.5f0aa0a7@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090827100809.5f0aa0a7@linux.intel.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, miltonm@bga.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, brueckner@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org

Alan Cox wrote:
> >  - Then, are we certain that there's no case where the tty layer will
> > call us with some lock held or in an atomic context ? To be honest,
> > I've totally lost track of the locking rules in tty land lately so it
> > might well be ok, but something to verify.
> 
> Some of the less well behaved line disciplines do this and always have
> done.

I had a backtrace in my kernel log recently which looked like that,
while doing PPP over Bluetooth RFCOMM.  Resulted in AppArmor
complaining that it's hook was being called in irq context.

-- Jamie